Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 01-1520
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Keith Ryan Havens, HAVENS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. W. Michel Pierson, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Planmatics, Inc., brought an action against Robert Showers, its former employee, alleging that Showers breached a non-competition
agreement and breached the fiduciary duties he owed Planmatics. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Showers on the
breach of fiduciary duty claim. See Planmatics, Inc. v. Showers, 137
F. Supp. 2d 616, 629 (D. Md. 2001). As to the breach of contract
claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Showers on Planmatics claim for actual damages. See id. at 624. Thereafter, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
claim for nominal damages.1 Planmatics appeals, and we affirm.
I.
Planmatics offers consulting services to various companies, including Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. In 1994, Planmatics hired Showers to provide marketing and consulting services to Planmatics
customers. Showers signed a non-competition agreement that prevented him, for a period of two years, from providing marketing or
consulting services to certain specified customers, including Ryder.
While he worked for Planmatics, Showers primarily performed services for Ryder.
In the fall of 1995, Ryder began questioning some of the expenses
that Planmatics included in its invoices to Ryder. After an audit,
Ryder concluded that approximately $50,000 of expenses had been
improperly billed, and Planmatics agreed to credit that amount against
1
Even if, as Planmatics contends, some of this evidence was inadmissible hearsay that should not have been considered by the district court,
there was ample non-hearsay evidence showing that Planmatics received
no new business after the audit.
On the merits of the fiduciary duty claim, we agree with the district
court that Planmatics failed to present any evidence tending to show
any breach of duty by Showers. There is no evidence that Showers
breached his duty of loyalty by negotiating for employment with
Ryder prior to his resignation from Planmatics. Nor is there evidence
establishing other instances of misconduct that could be considered a
breach of Showers fiduciary duties under Maryland law. Planmatics
vague and unsubstantiated responses to interrogatories are simply
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 802 (4th Cir. 1998) (affirming grant of
summary judgment because the plaintiffs "conclusory statements,
without specific evidentiary support" were insufficient to create a
genuine issue of fact").
IV.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district
court is hereby affirmed.3
AFFIRMED
3
Planmatics does not challenge the district courts decision not to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claim for nominal damages, except
to argue that should this court reverse any aspect of the district courts
decision on the merits of Planmatics claims, then we should likewise
reverse the courts dismissal of the nominal damages claim. Because we
have affirmed the summary judgment order, we need not consider
whether the nominal damages claim was properly dismissed.